Till date, after Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States, he has been changing his stance on all major issues. In particular, the foreign policy. Just last week after the sickening and terrible Chemical Attack in Syria, Trump seems to be echoing a different sentiment. A sentiment that is followed by Europeans, Japan, Australia and other Middle Eastern allies. The sentiment is to ouster Assad.

Simultaneously, US has shown its intention clear of taking stringent action against the North Korean regime for their nuclear threat. That is a tricky ball game altogether with the close proximity of South Korea and Japan. An all out war here could be different.

So my question to all of the esteemed members of this forum is that: Are we going to see the US under another Republican President proceed with the regime change in Syria and this time North Korea as well? Is it inevitable?

It seems like two very different approaches are being taken by the Trump administration with regards to Syria and North Korea.

Syria: The administration has fired "a shot across the bows" to warn both Syria and Russia that continued attacks against innocent civilians will not be tolerated. Let's hope that that is enough to bring the Syrians and Russians to the negotiating table in order to find a diplomatic way forward. Secretary Tillerson is visiting Moscow today, let's see if he can make some headway. I think that another war in the Middle East would be an option of last resort - there are other ways to deal with Syria.

North Korea: I think that military intervention here is far more likely. The Communist regime in North Korea not only poses a threat to their own people (poverty and starvation), but also to the wider Asia-Pacific region and, if they develop their weaponry sufficiently, the US and Europe. The country is run by a cruel, unpredictable madman. Previous negotiations have consistently failed. The time to deal with North Korea is now, not sometime in the future when their military capabilities are strengthened.

Syria: The administration has fired "a shot across the bows" to warn both Syria and Russia that continued attacks against innocent civilians will not be tolerated. Let's hope that that is enough to bring the Syrians and Russians to the negotiating table in order to find a diplomatic way forward. Secretary Tillerson is visiting Moscow today, let's see if he can make some headway. I think that another war in the Middle East would be an option of last resort - there are other ways to deal with Syria.

North Korea: I think that military intervention here is far more likely. The Communist regime in North Korea not only poses a threat to their own people (poverty and starvation), but also to the wider Asia-Pacific region and, if they develop their weaponry sufficiently, the US and Europe. The country is run by a cruel, unpredictable madman. Previous negotiations have consistently failed. The time to deal with North Korea is now, not sometime in the future when their military capabilities are strengthened.

Thank you for your thoughts on this.

Syria: During this visit by Rex Tillerson to Russia, he has to make Trump Administration's stance clear on whether or not they want the boots on the ground in Syria to ouster Assad. In the last few weeks, we have seen different approaches spelt out by Tillerson, Nikki Hailey, Trump and other US Congressmen. Now there is no doubt in my mind that the Trump administration would like to take an affirmative military action against Assad regime. Russia is also aware that Assad has gone too far in abusing his power by killing many of his fellow citizens.

But the Kremlin is rightfully concerned that in getting rid of Assad you might create a political vacuum in Syria. So far, there has not been any clarity as to who are the established moderate oppositions in Syria that can bring unity and stability amongst all the communities living in this region. In other words, we won't get to see the political situation that took place in Iraq.There is also another concern from Russia that in shifting the focus to removing Assad from power, is it going to let ISIS off the radar.

So the Trump administration should organise a meeting with the prominent Syrian oppositions and get a clear picture as to whether they are capable of bringing people together and form a Secular Democratic Government. By doing this, the US and its allies can avoid another Terrorist Organization coming into power.

North Korea: As far as the war in this region is concerned, China has expressed its concerns that it will bring in huge refugee to their country. Hence, would create instability in this region. We will have to wait and see what will be the next move by the US.

Going into Syria would probably be a mistake, but it's already a clusterfuck so it couldn't be much worse than that. The opposition has been decimated, it's a civil war, nobody can unite the country at this point. That's why I would support a no fly zone.

Going into North Korea would be a colossal blunder, there is no hope of any "win" there.

How can you let Russia invade and take over countries, but attack a country that is only testing a couple of old school weapons, that of course you yourself possess in vast numbers ?

New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams

But the Kremlin is rightfully concerned that in getting rid of Assad you might create a political vacuum in Syria. So far, there has not been any clarity as to who are the established moderate oppositions in Syria that can bring unity and stability amongst all the communities living in this region. In other words, we won't get to see the political situation that took place in Iraq.There is also another concern from Russia that in shifting the focus to removing Assad from power, is it going to let ISIS off the radar.

This is the crux of the problem. Syria cannot simply be reduced to "Assad = Bad, Rebels = Good". Whether or not there truly exists a moderate opposition is a subject for debate in and of itself. Which is why launching a full-scale intervention in Syria would probably be unwise and have unintended consequences. Hopefully the missile strike will have clearly shown Assad that there are lines that he cannot cross - if nothing else comes of this strike, then I sincerely hope that it will at least prevent the horrific use of chemical weapons against innocent citizens in future. The rest is more complicated - only recently both Secretary Tillerson and Ambassador Haley suggested that regime change was not the primary objective of the United States, but what a difference a week makes, because now it is difficult to see how a leader who slaughters his own people can be allowed to continue. However, it is similarly difficult to identify a moderate opposition and plot a path forward. I think that Syria needs a great deal of "softly softly" diplomacy, rather than a full scale military intervention. Others, of course, might disagree.

But the Kremlin is rightfully concerned that in getting rid of Assad you might create a political vacuum in Syria. So far, there has not been any clarity as to who are the established moderate oppositions in Syria that can bring unity and stability amongst all the communities living in this region. In other words, we won't get to see the political situation that took place in Iraq.There is also another concern from Russia that in shifting the focus to removing Assad from power, is it going to let ISIS off the radar.

This is the crux of the problem. Syria cannot simply be reduced to "Assad = Bad, Rebels = Good". Whether or not there truly exists a moderate opposition is a subject for debate in and of itself. Which is why launching a full-scale intervention in Syria would probably be unwise and have unintended consequences. Hopefully, the missile strike will have clearly shown Assad that there are lines that he cannot cross - if nothing else comes of this strike, then I sincerely hope that it will at least prevent the horrific use of chemical weapons against innocent citizens in future. The rest is more complicated - only recently both Secretary Tillerson and Ambassador Haley suggested that regime change was not the primary objective of the United States, but what a difference a week makes because now it is difficult to see how a leader who slaughters his own people can be allowed to continue. However, it is similarly difficult to identify a moderate opposition and plot a path forward. I think that Syria needs a great deal of "softly softly" diplomacy, rather than a full-scale military intervention. Others, of course, might disagree.

He's been slaughtering his own people for years. President Obama requested that Congress authorize the use of more force in Syria, and the Republicans sat on their hands, and also warned him not to do anything without their approval. Now, they're silent as Trump used U.S. force without their approval, and, in under a week, went from trying to accommodate Russia and Assad to bombing him. And he did it not to help Syrians because he still won't let Syrian refugees into the U.S. when fleeing this war, he did it simply to try to draw attention away from the Russian scandal that won't go away.

He's been slaughtering his own people for years. President Obama requested that Congress authorize the use of more force in Syria, and the Republicans sat on their hands, and also warned him not to do anything without their approval. Now, they're silent as Trump used U.S. force without their approval, and, in under a week, went from trying to accommodate Russia and Assad to bombing him. And he did it not to help Syrians because he still won't let Syrian refugees into the U.S. when fleeing this war, he did it simply to try to draw attention away from the Russian scandal that won't go away.

That depends on what sort of force we're talking about. The force used by President Trump was exercised entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. I don't think that there are many scholars arguing otherwise - a few politicians, in-keeping with their agenda, perhaps, but by and large it has been accepted that his actions were both justified and legal.

As for your comment about Ivanka, I think you're being overly-simplistic. It seems that Ivanka acted as a counsel to Trump, a role which members of the First Family traditionally take on. President Trump was also able to rely on the advice of his capable National Security Adviser; General HR McMaster, Secretary Tillerson at State and Secretary Mattis at Defense. Let's not pretend like he ordered the strike because Ivanka told him to - he had options in front of him, approved by leading figures in the military; this wasn't just a spur-of-the-moment decision to strike Syria.

And not to forget Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner who was appointed as Senior Advisor to the President. He is also responsible for changing the mindset of Trump. He is been seen by many political experts as more of a person that is concerned about world politics and the unrest happening around the world.

The side-lining of Steve Bannon and his tussle with Kushner is a clear indication that Trump is slowly coming back to the reality that he cannot be an isolationist. So his campaign promise of 'America First' seems to be no longer his priority. Except for Trump, his entire family seems to have a more balanced and measured view about the society.

Last edited by aerosreenivas on Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The thing that seems to be forgotten about Korea is the fact that the South Korean government and especially the South Korean people are strongly opposed to military action by the US. If the US were to take unilateral action, there probably would be severe political blowback in the south.

I'm not in favor of any intervention in Syria - I think both the government and the rebels are rotten to the core and don't mind seeing them kill each other if that's what they enjoy doing.

That said, Trump's airstrike the other day seems to have been unusually focused and surgical. The airbase and particularly the aircraft used (or usable) in chemical attacks were targeted, while Russian aircraft on the same base were left alone. So if the intended message to Assad is "If you use WMDs, we will remove your ability to deploy them again for the next X years" (until he can buy new planes, anyway).

So Hillis, what would you prefer? We level all of Damscus? Do nothing? Tell us what you would like to see happen.

The Trump Administration is slowly showing more concerns about the Barrel Bombs that are unleashed daily by Assad on his civilians. That itself might push him further to go closer towards a dual war in fighting against ISIS and removing Assad from power in Syria.

The Trump Administration is slowly showing more concerns about the Barrel Bombs that are unleashed daily by Assad on his civilians. That itself might push him further to go closer towards a dual war in fighting against ISIS and removing Assad from power in Syria.

It does seem as though Trump is getting himself (and us) enmeshed with Syria with no way out.

The way I see it, the policy espoused by Trump and also by most of the Republicans is based on a faulty understanding of the problem; they think ISIS is the problem when really ISIS is but a symptom of the problem. Taking it one layer deeper we could say that problem in Iraq / Syria, is militant Islamic fundamentalism of the Sunni variety and we do have to be careful to maintain the distinction between Sunni and Shia militants because they are separate issues and to try to enmesh them is an effort in self delusion. But we still haven't reached an understanding of the root cause of the problem by seeing it as militant Islamic fundamentalism, because once again we are looking at a symptom, not a cause.

The root cause of both Sunni and Shia militancy is the resentment among the people of the ME over how they have been treated by the west. In the case of the Sunnis, the colonial powers divided up the land known as Mesopotamia into unstable nation states so as to be able to control them by playing factions off against each other. But then even before that the west had been off and on dumping on the locals all the way back to Roman times; this story has legs. In the case of the Shias, the US and Britain overthrew the Iranian government and installed the Peacock Throne aka the Shah, who implemented a totalitarian government with the secret police and all, which completely mucked things up. When the overthrow came, we then gave refuge to their tyrant, because after all he was our agent.

Then to put icing on the cake comes Israel, the colonial invader from the west with an insatiable appetite for expansion.

If we don't face the fact that we, the west, have been the root cause of the problems in the ME then all we're ever going to do is to try to beat them into submission and that's never going to be a solution.

Don't do anything with either 'leader' or their countries.If you depose Assad, who takes over ? It could be someone would attack Israel, likely someone who will just make things worse for everyone, create more refugees and continue the civil war there. Go after North Korea and you may get terrible destruction of South Korea and disrupt the delicate relations of China and the world. Don't pay off with $$$ to NK either, that is just playing into NK's extortion racket they have run for years.

Till date, after Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States, he has been changing his stance on all major issues. In particular, the foreign policy. Just last week after the sickening and terrible Chemical Attack in Syria, Trump seems to be echoing a different sentiment. A sentiment that is followed by Europeans, Japan, Australia and other Middle Eastern allies. The sentiment is to ouster Assad.

Simultaneously, US has shown its intention clear of taking stringent action against the North Korean regime for their nuclear threat. That is a tricky ball game altogether with the close proximity of South Korea and Japan. An all out war here could be different.

So my question to all of the esteemed members of this forum is that: Are we going to see the US under another Republican President proceed with the regime change in Syria and this time North Korea as well? Is it inevitable?

Would like to get thoughts from all of you.

Cheers.

I think at the end of the day, Trump is all about instability. I think at the end of the day, Regime change is inevitable in North Korea, Syria, and many other countries,

The real question is whether it will be with or without a lot of collateral damage. Neither Assad or Kim Jong will go quietly into their retirement.

Russia and China are deeply vested in both locals. What would changes to the balances of these countries mean to their political and business. needs?

There are roughly 20.000 DPRK artillery tubes, all within reach of and pointing towards Seoul. Should the US launch any kind of aggression against the DPRK, it would result in the quick and complete annihilation of Seoul, likely killing millions of civilians in the process.

Young Fat Un doesn't need nukes to deter the US from attacking; he's got the mother of all shotguns pointed straight at the heart of South Korea, and no amount of Tomahawk missiles, nuke or conventional, or stealth bombers could ever hope to reduce that threat to an acceptable level.

As long as the DPRK is ruled by madmen, and those madmen have such a formidable deterrent in the form of artillery within easy range of Seoul, nobody's going to dare an act of aggression, let alone an invasion.

As for Syrian, it's a monumental cock-up of near-biblical proportions. The thing about civil wars is, that an outsider is best advised not to interfere.

From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove

The way I see it, the policy espoused by Trump and also by most of the Republicans is based on a faulty understanding of the problem; they think ISIS is the problem when really ISIS is but a symptom of the problem. Taking it one layer deeper we could say that problem in Iraq / Syria, is militant Islamic fundamentalism of the Sunni variety and we do have to be careful to maintain the distinction between Sunni and Shia militants because they are separate issues and to try to enmesh them is an effort in self-delusion. But we still haven't reached an understanding of the root cause of the problem by seeing it as militant Islamic fundamentalism, because once again we are looking at a symptom, not a cause.

The root cause of both Sunni and Shia militancy is the resentment among the people of the ME over how they have been treated by the west. In the case of the Sunnis, the colonial powers divided up the land known as Mesopotamia into unstable nation-states so as to be able to control them by playing factions off against each other. But then even before that, the west had been off and on dumping on the locals all the way back to Roman times; this story has legs. In the case of the Shias, the US and Britain overthrew the Iranian government and installed the Peacock Throne aka the Shah, who implemented a totalitarian government with the secret police and all, which completely mucked things up. When the overthrow came, we then gave refuge to their tyrant, because after all, he was our agent.

Rightly said. I agree on this.

All of the previous US presidents including the current one have failed to address this serious issue that plays a major role in creating instability in the entire ME. The Western powers should urge their counterparts in the ME to have a dialogue process started with the Shia and Sunni communities. That should include the Saudis (Sunni state) speaking to Iranians (Shia state) and try to settle down their differences.

The US should stop framing Iranians as a 'State Sponsor of Terrorism'. If we look at their support to Hizbollah or any other Shia militias is simply to counter the attack posed by Sunni terrorist groups. By saying this, I don't mean that Iran government is all clean. Even they are responsible for some tensions created in that region.

But in the larger scheme of things, it is helpful not only for the ME but also for the entire globe if the Shias and Sunnis can come together so that they can create a new environment for all its people with good education, economy, and jobs. This will give all the more reason for youths to not join these Jihadist groups.

Syria is a giant Charlie Foxtrot and we should stay the hell out of there. As Dreadnaught said up-thread, let the factions there battle each other. The US can't run in and address every humanitarian crisis all over the world and the US' record when intervening in Middle-East affairs is dismal at best. Leave it alone.....

North Korea is a sticky wicket - L'il Kim is a looney but he's a looney with nukes and a pretty large army. If the US were to attack, South Korea would be in a world of hurt, even if the US went full throttle. We can only hope for an internal power struggle there and that the crazy Fat Kid is deposed by his own people

North Korea is a sticky wicket - L'il Kim is a looney but he's a looney with nukes and a pretty large army. If the US were to attack, South Korea would be in a world of hurt, even if the US went full throttle. We can only hope for an internal power struggle there and that the crazy Fat Kid is deposed by his own people

That's the only clean way for the world to handle NK. There has to be some generals and party high-ups in NK that have met in secret to discuss this as soon as Kim offed his uncle. There has to be some in the high echelon that knows how the rest of the world is and that aren't brainwashed by the Kim family and Juche.

You know all is right is the world when the only thing people worry about is if the president had sex with a pornstar.

The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.

North Korea is a sticky wicket - L'il Kim is a looney but he's a looney with nukes and a pretty large army. If the US were to attack, South Korea would be in a world of hurt, even if the US went full throttle. We can only hope for an internal power struggle there and that the crazy Fat Kid is deposed by his own people

Of course, the US military experience in Asia since the 1950s has been far, far better than the middle east. Oh, wait.....

I can't see how unilateral US action in either location, especially on "regime change" scale can be good.

The sudden urgency being shown by the Trump administration and the Europeans in removing Assad from power is to reduce the influx of refugees into their region. This could be one of the possibility.

Trump's obsession with winning as he echoed during his entire campaign last year, I wouldn't be surprised if he would come up with some wild military strikes against any regime that he feels it needs to wiped out.

The sudden urgency being shown by the Trump administration and the Europeans in removing Assad from power is to reduce the influx of refugees into their region. This could be one of the possibility.

Trump's obsession with winning as he echoed during his entire campaign last year, I wouldn't be surprised if he would come up with some wild military strikes against any regime that he feels it needs to wiped out.

What do you mean, it has been the point of view of the European governments from the get go as was from the Obama administration. So we are back from where we started, except Trump is more unpredictable.

And there is no concrete evidence that Assad has been slaughtering his own people for years, or is responsible for a single war crime. It seems like a lot of people are trying to find this 'evidence' though. What we do know is that Syria was one of the safest and most stable countries before Islamist Jihadis tried to take over Syria, which are currently being backed by the West and the USA.

And there is no concrete evidence that Assad has been slaughtering his own people for years, or is responsible for a single war crime. It seems like a lot of people are trying to find this 'evidence' though. What we do know is that Syria was one of the safest and most stable countries before Islamist Jihadis tried to take over Syria, which are currently being backed by the West and the USA.

You mean those same jihadis that are being designated for air strikes by US Navy Seals/AF PJs/Army Delta Force/ Marine Force Recon and the like to be lit up by US Navy and Marine Corps F-18s, USAF F-15/16/22s, B-1/2/52s, and AC-130 gunships all up and down Iraq and Syria, with Tomahawks being thrown at them in Yemen from US Navy Destroyers in the Arabian Sea?

If by "backed" you mean getting blown to Hell, then yeah. We'll back them all day long!

You know all is right is the world when the only thing people worry about is if the president had sex with a pornstar.

The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.

And there is no concrete evidence that Assad has been slaughtering his own people for years, or is responsible for a single war crime. It seems like a lot of people are trying to find this 'evidence' though. What we do know is that Syria was one of the safest and most stable countries before Islamist Jihadis tried to take over Syria, which are currently being backed by the West and the USA.

You mean those same jihadis that are being designated for air strikes by US Navy Seals/AF PJs/Army Delta Force/ Marine Force Recon and the like to be lit up by US Navy and Marine Corps F-18s, USAF F-15/16/22s, B-1/2/52s, and AC-130 gunships all up and down Iraq and Syria, with Tomahawks being thrown at them in Yemen from US Navy Destroyers in the Arabian Sea?

If by "backed" you mean getting blown to Hell, then yeah. We'll back them all day long!

I mean those backed financially by the US before the conflict had even started. The US was a major contributor to starting that war and trying to bring about regime change for some reason. Working out well as we can see... You can read the leaked Wikileaks cables from 2011. Here's an article to get you started.

There are roughly 20.000 DPRK artillery tubes, all within reach of and pointing towards Seoul. Should the US launch any kind of aggression against the DPRK, it would result in the quick and complete annihilation of Seoul, likely killing millions of civilians in the process.

Young Fat Un doesn't need nukes to deter the US from attacking; he's got the mother of all shotguns pointed straight at the heart of South Korea, and no amount of Tomahawk missiles, nuke or conventional, or stealth bombers could ever hope to reduce that threat to an acceptable level.

As long as the DPRK is ruled by madmen, and those madmen have such a formidable deterrent in the form of artillery within easy range of Seoul, nobody's going to dare an act of aggression, let alone an invasion.

As for Syrian, it's a monumental cock-up of near-biblical proportions. The thing about civil wars is, that an outsider is best advised not to interfere.

real problem for the US is the refugees it would create along the NK/China border. China doesn't want 20 million North Koreans pouring over it's border should Trump & Co decide to strike.

Who the heck knows how to best deal with North Korea, but now that Kim has threatened to nuke the US, he and consequently North Korea are fair game. I hope that Trump will prevent North Korea from ever being able to hit the USA with a ICBM / Nuke regardless of what that might involve given how unpredictable Kim is. If it gets to the point where a massive strike on North Korea is required, then I'm okay with that; better to hit them before they can hit us. Who really knows what they are capable of; I'd rather not find out the hard way.

As for Syria, if Russia wants to run things there, I say let Russia have Syria. Let Russia try to deal with Syria and ISIL. I hope to see all US Allies pull out of that troubled area and let the locals there just kill each other off and blow each other up. By pulling out, we would then see just how committed Russia, or Putin, is to Syria. We all know that Ukraine is more important to Putin so this is what I propose happens... Now that Trump has changed his position and insists that NATO is no longer 'obsolete', I would like the see the Ukraine invited to join NATO. So, Putin can have the headache of having to deal with Syria, and have to deal with a NATO member if he wants to keep tinkering with the Ukraine. If Trump could somehow facilitate the Ukraine joining NATO, that would be a spanner thrown into the works for Putin - or a slap in the face - and I'd love to see how Putin responds. After all, Putin is the guy who has a problem with the US just surgically striking the Syrian air base that was allegedly used to launch the chemical attack, claiming what the US did breached international law, but he thinks its okay to invade and annex part of another country as well as shoot down a commercial passenger plane.

North Korea:People tend to listen to what their friends have to say, not their enemies. China needs to do a LOT more in the area to reel in this crazy guy, it is in their interest to. Thousands of refugees crossing the boarder into China to escape a war would bring instablility to China, something it would find frightening. Kim needs to be "removed" from the scenario sooner rather than later IF China is unable to reason with him.

you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!Growing older, but not up.

Yes I agree that things were going well, but then Kim got over confident, encouraged by his advisers no doubt, and fired off too many test missiles and China failed to reel him in so he got a bit bolder, which is where we are today.

you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!Growing older, but not up.

Yes I agree that things were going well, but then Kim got over confident, encouraged by his advisers no doubt, and fired off too many test missiles and China failed to reel him in so he got a bit bolder, which is where we are today.

The turning point was the denial of a Peace Treaty to replace the Armistice that ended the hot Korean War ... tada .. by the US.IMU an indispensable prerequisite for going forward with "nearness".

Thousands of refugees crossing the boarder into China to escape a war would bring instablility to China, something it would find frightening.

Which for the US seems to be is the primary objective for keeping the embers glowing with North Korea and Kim XX.

Not long ago the inter Korean peace process was going quite well ... until the US started to "help things on".

Kim Jong Il actually did quite a bit for peace in his later days, even allowing the import of aid in the form of rice shipments. His son screwed everything up. There's been 11 missile tests in the 5 years he's been in charge alone, more than doubling the number the tests since the first Nodong missile test in 1993.

aerosreenivas wrote:

It is not the question about taking Assad and Kim out of power. It is about replacing them with more representative leaders so that there will be no chaos in these regions.Sadly, there are no trustable leaders to replace them.

Kim's brother would have been a great replacement. The only thing he ever did bad was try to go to Disneyland on a fake passport.

You know all is right is the world when the only thing people worry about is if the president had sex with a pornstar.

The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.

I guess there is no need for the US to go for an out-right war with the North Korean regime.

Because everyday North Korea's frequent test firing of their ballistic missiles are a failure. As it is been reported by many news channels daily. Also the regime is totally isolated with the rest of the world. So it is going to be difficult for them to acquire more fundings to develop any sophisticated missiles that can destroy another country.

That is why I don't think it is necessary for Trump administration to go for a war with North Korea. Instead they have to focus on blocking whatever the fundings that Kim's regime is still getting from certain sources.